Features » August 20, 2004

Party Hacks

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

It’s the kind of preaching so common in conservative circles that it slips past the public. In May, a Minnesota state official told a prayer group in May, the “five words” that are “probably most destructive” in the nation today are “separation of church and state.”

Such an assertion by a public servant would have drawn shrugs were it not from Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, whose duty is impartial administration of elections. And her remarks might have escaped wider attention had she not later justified them, claiming victim status for right-wing Christians: “There are a lot of good church people who don’t think they can be involved in government.”

Kiffmeyer’s defense of greater church involvement in the democratic process appears curious in light of rules she proposed that would have had precisely the opposite effect on most Minnesotans. Kiffmeyer recently decided that in order to vote in November every would-be voter in the state must show an ID reflecting an “exact match” to the file of names, driver’s license numbers and dates of birth circulated by her office. Such rules would have the effect of robbing the vote from thousands of state residents, including those who encounter errors in the information about them on Kiffmeyer’s official list.

Minnesotans are not alone in facing gaps in electoral integrity from schemes like those concocted in 2000 by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. A nationwide review reveals a disturbing pattern in closely contested states of Republican office-holders with close ties to the Bush-Cheney campaign: Remove eligible voters from official rolls and erect barriers to new or young voters and minorities who vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

An administrative law judge nixed Kiffmeyer’s required ID matching in a ruling on July 22 but did not dismantle a second barrier she erected. Many county officials say her cumbersome voter-registration form deters would-be applicants. In St. Paul’s Ramsey County alone, more than a third of 6,500 completed forms submitted earlier this year contained errors and were rejected.

Instead of allowing a clearer, easier form after learning of such problems, Kiffmeyer, cribbing a line from the Bush reelection playbook, demanded continuity amid a crisis she helped create. “We are in midstream in an election cycle,” she told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. “We have an application out there … and we’ll continue to use that.”

In placing hurdles before voters, conservatives are nothing if not consistent.

Missouri has been a hotbed of election intrigue since November 2000 when a high turnout of African-American voters embarrassed then-Sen. John Ashcroft, who narrowly lost to the deceased Mel Carnahan. Since then, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) has pushed for and won provisions in the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) that stiffened ID requirements involving new registrants and voters across the nation. Matt Blunt, the GOP secretary of state, also faced pressure from his right-wing base to tighten ballot access.

Missouri conservatives hoped their strategy of policing access to the ballot would bear fruit in the August 3 primary, the state’s first major election since implementing HAVA. Instead, it was Bond who felt the perils of aggressive purging of state voter lists. His name was struck from records in his hometown of Mexico, where he has voted for 40 years, and he had to produce a photo ID and voter identification card in order to vote for himself.

Bond’s experience may be Exhibit A in a larger case. Litigation seems likely after dozens of St. Louis residents had to seek assistance from NAACP volunteers to get a ballot from election monitors who didn’t find them on rosters. One woman, who had recently changed apartments within the same building, faced rejection at her polling place even though she was registered at the address.

In New Hampshire, Republicans have made a pastime of resisting young voters in college towns. Students in the university town of Durham turned out to vote in 2002, only to receive a handout from election proctors laced with scare tactics, including the warning that they could jeopardize their financial aid by voting at an address other than their permanent home.

The strategy successfully diminished turnout, and Democrats felt the sting. The GOP took full control of state government, rolling from parity in the state senate to a rollicking 18-to-6 majority. In the next session on strict party-line votes, they promptly pushed through a sweeping bill to limit access to voting and toughen sanctions for fraud.

This spring, the state’s Republican House Speaker Gene Chandler put a razor-fine point on the motives behind the law. “It is simply not right to allow college students to have any say in our elections in New Hampshire,” he told a public forum. “We need to control that.”

Other episodes show that Harris’ Florida exploits were only the beginning.

In Michigan, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land doubles as the state chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. In this capacity, she gives fundraising pitches for Bush and shows her penchant for strategic arithmetic. “If we all signed up 17 new voters and worked 17 hours for our president,” she told a gathering in Holland, “Bush will win Michigan.”
Land continues to enforce a 2000 law that has effectively barred thousands of college students from voting. The Detroit Free Press reported in 2002 that in its first two years, the law dissuaded thousands of student voters from registering near campus, cutting voter rolls by 10 percent in East Lansing and 8 percent in Ann Arbor. The law already has claimed one high-profile casualty: Democrat Dianne Byrum lost her race for Congress to conservative Mike Rogers by 88 votes in a district that included the liberal college town of East Lansing. As a state legislator, Rogers was both sponsor of the law and its foremost beneficiary.

In Colorado, Secretary of State Donetta Davidson faces embarrassment over her leadership in the Elections Center, a nominally nonpartisan state office that has accepted donations from e-voting companies at the same time it touted their machinery. She also backed the scheme, shot down in state court, to allow partisan redrawing of congressional districts in 2003.

In South Dakota, Secretary of State Chris Nelson is facing lawsuits from Lakota tribes for posting erroneous warning signs at polling places during the June 1 special election for Congress.
Jacqueline Johnson of the National Congress of American Indians told the New York Times that several ballot locations displayed signs reading “No ID, no vote.” Many would-be voters went home feeling intimidated by election monitors who did not inform them of their right to complete an affidavit, which, even with no ID, would allow them to cast a ballot. (HAVA allows for provisional ballots for voters who don’t provide ID or fill out an affidavit, these are much more likely to be disqualified than regular ballots.)
The ploy apparently worked. Fewer Lakota turned out to vote than in 2002, when counties with high percentages of Indians saw participation rates soar in a Senate brawl in which the White House jumped in to oust Democratic incumbent Tim Johnson. In a dramatic 11th-hour turn, those counties were among the last to report their totals, and their margins reversed a small lead for Republican John Thune and gave Johnson a narrow win.

In Ohio, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has gone several extra miles to endorse a federal constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples. In July, before a failed cloture vote doomed the GOP proposal, Blackwell flew to Washington to rally senators—despite his duty in the Buckeye State to impartially oversee the validation of signatures on petitions submitted to place a question before voters this fall about amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

In Florida, GOP mischief with voting rolls is making perhaps the most glaring mockery of fair play and open government. Harris’ successor Glenda Hood remains embroiled in fallout from her bid to pare 47,000 supposed felons from the state voter lists. Recent disclosures show that Hood’s list wrongly excluded hundreds of Latino felons, who, in Florida, often back GOP candidates, while it included hundreds of African-American felons who had won restoration of their voting rights. Newspapers investigated and spotted the list’s inherent partisan bias after a judge ordered the list be made public, and Governor Jeb Bush retracted it.

Many voters, like St. Petersburg Times columnist Howard Troxler, found their amazement commingled with anger. “They do not get to stand there week after week, all self-righteous, declaring that anybody who questions their list is a fool,” Troxler wrote in July. Does this mean, he asked, that Jeb Bush is “gonna get our $2 million back or fire somebody?”

Like hawks who soften when loved ones get in harm’s way, even the most brazen advocates of election barriers sing a different tune after facing Election Day stop signs. After his brush with exclusion from the voter rolls, Kit Bond told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “I tell you what. Voting is not easy.”

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

Hans Johnson, a contributing editor of In These Times, is president of Progressive Victory, based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. He is a columnist and commentator on labor, religion and trends in state and national politics.

Why don't the Democrats play by the same "rule book" as the republicans? The answer should be obvious:
If it is wrong for the republican'ts to play by such "rules," it would, _ergo_, be wrong for the Democrats to do so.
Another way to put it: how is one different -- or better -- than those one emulates?
And another: two wrongs don't make a right.
The hard reality: the Republican'ts are subverting our system of laws -- the Constitution. If everyone else joins in doing the same, what then would exist to make support of democracy viable?Posted by jnagarya on 2004-12-25 09:21:47

why dont the dems play by the same rule book?Posted by chas b local on 2004-12-24 17:10:50

I make a distinction you fail to make. Though one can jabber one's "religion" as part of one's campaigning, there are still limits.
Once in office, however, "religious tests" are _unconstitutional_. Therefore, when Kiffmeyer applies a religious test to who she will and won't prevent voting, she is betraying her oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws, and violating the law.
And those are based upon an anti-constitutional _lie_ -- which act negates her claims to be "religious".
That is how the law is distorted, and worse, in the real world.Posted by jnagarya on 2004-10-24 11:58:40

jnagarya, I had hoped by this time you would have realized that I posted the information about the theocrats for Bush as a way of advising anyone interested, to assist them in learning about the tactics currently being employed by the Republican Party.
I am a firm believer and in agreement with you that our Constitution is based on secular law, but also that it also does not prevent anyone, of any faith, or those of none at all, from participating in any governmental function they desire.
Your railing against those who would use religious contacts for a political purposes ignores the fact that such actions are both legally constitutional and to be expected.
Both major parties and even all minor parties can be expected to use every contact and association they have or can manufacture, to corral and enlist support for their political philosophy.
Will they lie, cheat and steal to gain political power? Certainly!
Can you believe that it is unfair for these people to make use of every means at their disposal? Certainly!
Will your believing that have much affect on their future actions? Not too likely, in my opinion!Posted by Jerry Buerge on 2004-10-24 06:52:16

I suggest that you look at the Constitution Party for its claim that the US is "intended" to be a "Christian" nation. They ask whether the law is to be that of "God," or that of man. From Article VI of the US Constitution:
. . . . This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . ."
Their error is not having read the Constitution to determine what it "means" according to its own language. Also from Article VI: ". . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The Framers were abundantly clear as to their views of alleged "religion," and they acted on that by erecting, as James "Father of the Constitution" Madison said, "a wall between church and state". It is found in the above prohibition against religious tests. And again in the First Amendment. Contrary to your assertion, it couldn't be more clear and certain that the Framers intended separation of church and state, and made it so in the _supreme_ law of the land -- the Constitution.
The fact is that the US is not based upon "Christian heritage". It is based upon secular -- man's -- law. Those who believe otherwise haven't read anything except the "bible" -- except that most of them haven't read that either.Posted by jnagarya on 2004-10-23 06:50:22

THEOCRATS FOR BUSH: Here's a revealing tale about what's happening in the Republican party. It's a story that needs to be followed up.
The Republican National Committee is employing the services of a Texas-based activist who believes the United States is a 'Christian nation' and the separation of church and state is 'a myth.'
David Barton, the founder of an organization called Wallbuilders, was hired by the RNC as a political consultant and has been traveling the
country for a year--speaking at about 300 RNC-sponsored lunches for local evangelical pastors. During the lunches, he presents a slide
show of American monuments, discusses his view of America's Christian heritage -- and tells pastors that they are allowed to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15469_1.htmlPosted by Jerry Buerge on 2004-10-23 06:11:22

jnagarya, I believe you will find one of the areas included on the NOW with Bill Moyers broadcast on PBS tonight.
"KEVIN PHILLIPS
Both candidates have said their relationship with God is personal, but more and more, faith is making its way onto the stump. How is religion being employed by the campaigns as the election closes in? Bill Moyers gets in-depth perspective on this and the week's news from returning NOW analyst and author Kevin Phillips."Posted by Jerry Buerge on 2004-10-22 07:28:12

jnagarya - you are indeed correct. I have chosen to avoid your point, as the objective of the original article is to show and suggests reasons why would-be voters are actually being prevented from voting.
My comments were devoted toward pointing out that Minnesota law and election procedures effectively prevents gross manipulative interference directed toward restricting voting to only the chosen groups that can be relied upon to vote in a certain way. I believe that I have shown that to be true.
On the other hand, you have attempted to show motivation that may or may not exist that will, in your view, result in discrimination against all non-Christians. You have now had a chance to express your personal point of greatest interest within this subject area. You've had the opportunity to condemn Secretary Kiffmeyer for what you conceive to be a violation of our constitution.
My interpretation of the Constitution is that it clearly prevents discrimination against any particular religion but fails to firmly state that a belief in a religion of any kind is either necessary or even desirable to the peaceful pursuits of our government. While it certainly is true that many pillars of the current Republican Party have consistently interpreted the wording of our constitution in such manner as to tell us what the drafters "really meant" when they wrote it.
My interpretation of the news article suggests that Secretary Kiffmeyer simply informed a group of potential supporters of her advancement within government, that an allegiance to an Almighty does not prevent one constitutionally from becoming politically active. She was obviously appealing to a group that she considered to be of like-mind to her political philosophy. Would you therefore, under an umbrella of any kind of distorted constitutional argument prevent her from exercising that privilege?
I most certainly join you in condemning anyone's overt or covert use of others' personal beliefs' in concepts of blind faith for personal political gain. Yet, that is now being done by both major political parties and has been for years in more subdued manner .
So, who, anywhere in politics, might we proudly point our fingers at as NOT being guilty of this "crime"?Posted by Jerry Buerge on 2004-10-22 06:57:33

Mr. Buerge: you either miss or avoid the point. Not everyone is so naive as to believe that an adult does so by accident.
As to Kiffmeyer: a "Christian" who will lie against the Constitution for politial advantage will lie to advance that lie. That includes preventing non-"Christians" who do not accept the lie from voting. We've seen exactly the same behaviors from all the Republican't holier-than-thou lying "Christians" who stole the 2000 election, and on that foundation have worked to impose an extremist Reich Whine theocratic oppression on everyone else. Everyone else than themselves.
If you care to address the point, do so. If you'll only continue avoiding the point, don't bother responding.Posted by jnagarya on 2004-10-21 23:56:51

My comments have been directed to the suggestion by the author of the article that the actions of Secretary Kiffmeyer have been designed to prevent selected people from voting.
That simply is not true as the Minnesota system does not provide any information that identifies a potential voter by party preference or race.
The voter application used can be viewed at the following URL:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/election/MNVRCard.pdf
jnagarya, you also seem to be convinced that there is no real Independence Party of Minnesota that is interested in the Constitution or its provisions, if your use of quotation marks mean just that.
Here is our URL and you can thus see that we are indeed a very real political party. http://www.mnip.org/Posted by Jerry Buerge on 2004-10-21 18:53:05

So much said in defense of Kiffmeyer, nothing at all said about the lie against the Constitution that there is no separation of church and state. 'Course, the "Independence Party" is as concerned with the actual contents of the Constitution as most everyone else.
Aticle VI of the Constitution: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
All -- "Independence Party" members included --are welcome also to read the First Amendment on the point.Posted by jnagarya on 2004-10-21 16:20:32

I've read the comments about Mary Kiffmeyer and find some of the statements to be gross distortions of fact.
As a member of the Independence Party I am most certainly NOT a Kiffmeyer dedicated Republican Party member, but the writer of this article simply does not have his facts straight.
For openers, the Minnesota Voter Registration Application does NOT in any way require the applicant to divulge their party affiliation. While residency may possibly indicate a general clue to this based on previous election results, there is no assurance that any individual voter can be identified as a member of any particular party. The primary ballots used in Minnesota are inclusive of all potential candidates and thus do not require the voter to request a specific ballot to allow them to vote their choice.
The Voter Application Form itself is rather standard in design, been patterned after the National Voter Registration Form, which is incidently also accepted by all jurisdictions within the state of Minnesota for registration purposes.
As an election judge in the City of Roseville in Ramsey County I have a reasonable expectation that the primary reason for Ramsey County application rejection at the level cited in this news item was probably due to illegible writing by the applicants.
Because of my personally experiencing this exact problem, I have agitated both the Secretary of State's election people and the Ramsey County election group to modify their website offerings of this document so that it can be filled in using the applicant's computer before the then personalized version of the document can be down loaded through a printer, to be completed by the addition of a qualifying handwritten signature.
In all fairness to the Secretary, this change was accomplished under her direct authority and should result in increased accuracy of data quality for everyone involved. Verification of this improved version is easily obtained by simply viewing the document on the website. Such viewing will also verify that there is nothing complicated or obscure about the design of this document. In fact, the basic layout of the document precedes Mary Kiffmeyer's tenure in office .
The Ramsey County modernization of this Internet available document has not, as yet, been accomplished.Posted by Jerry Buerge on 2004-10-21 08:55:10

don't you actually mean to interchange those african americans with the cuban/latinos that will likely vote R?Posted by jon on 2004-08-30 22:58:42

Those who deend the erection of barriers to voting are, knowingly or not, approving the equivalents of poll tax and literacy tests being used by racists against those presumed to vote for the other party: minorities.
There's nothing new in that, of course; but there's also nothing in it which is not racist, racialist supremacist, and anti-constitutional. Or in it that is morally or otherwise "righteous".
Nor is there anything "Christian" in the claims of those engaged in that racist apartheid, especially with the constant lying against the "Christian" commandment, "Thou shalt not lie."
The KKK and Nazis have always claimed a superiority to everyone not them; and always wrapped in flag, fake moralizing, and religiosmut.
And I aim those factual refutations directly at the racists/supremacists above who defend the practice of screwing others for advantage while claiming to be more moral and religious than those they are screwing against American and Constitution.Posted by jnagarya on 2004-08-26 19:45:38

Are any of you actually surprised by these tactics? I mean look at what happened in Florida in the 2000 election.
It seems to me, that the ever so self-rightious Republicans believe that since they are right about everything, and that anyone who disagrees is working for Osama, they can use any means nessecary to keep 'Dubya' in office.
This is disgusting, but is keeping with the tooth-and-nail tactics from both sides. Too bad no independant canidate has a real chance at winning, but that's the US electoral system.
Now why can't we play nice like the Canadians?Posted by jerry on 2004-08-25 07:43:27

Oh my! What a nasty little war control of the electorate has become. How many suffrage rules are required?
But reading this article I am drawn once again to President Bushes "No Child Left Behind" strategy? If you make every teacher go for curiculums that forces teachers to "teach to the test", and are accountable for scores on those tests, as are the schools, when will those teachers teach civics? Who is educating our students about their civil rights? And how much do we know? And how do we act on that information?
I read a little blurb recently in Time Magazine about Nader's count for ballot access in PA. He came under attack for the signatures acquired by homeless people that he employed to collect signatures. (Quit your booing, he gave some homeless people a chance to earn money...Bush has not!) I raised the question with a few friends and family, "How do the homeless vote?" As they have no address, how do they register in a precinct?
My own activist sister told me that some states have "same day register/vote" laws. But she was intrigued and called her local election board in Ypsilanti MI...they were out to lunch. She called Ann Arbor's election officials and they told her that they had registered some homeless people. The constitution allows for all people that have attained the age of majority to vote and the states draw their lines and make their partisan rules. A homeless persons ability to vote went out with "White, male, landowners".
Year round residency should have little to do with your ability to vote as a student in another state. Neither should ethnicity or religion. Neither should lack of residency! What are the rules in your state? If you have the twinge to move beyond "No Child Left Behind", and find out what it takes to register someone that may consider themselves unable GO FOR IT! I intend to do the research. If you find the requirements, go to the streets and register as many people as you can.
It is time to back the vote, the rule, and the voice. Keep reading, keep researching, keep talking, and keep going. And oh, God bless Michael Moore, Michigan's favorite son.Posted by juli on 2004-08-23 15:39:27

Minnesota Sec of State Mary Kiffmeyer will still
challange any that do not perfectly match name and
driver license number. But the county auditor must now document a re-validation within 10 days or the challenge remains. Ramsey County, second largest in the state will have one person
validate the challanges, also challanges can be timed to be close to the list cut-off cutting the county audit time.
If there are 10,000 challenges
the paper work will flood that one person validating and the Kiff will succeed in kicking people off the list.Posted by joe doaks on 2004-08-23 09:47:44

Why give students a bunch of hassles about where their primary residence is? American Corporations are now declaring their "primary residences" are outside the US to dodge taxes and worker laws. It seems that would be a much bigger fish to fry... except that it is being done with the implicit assistance of the American government.
As Steve mentioned, many of those students spend four years at school, a growing portion of them year-round. I know "permanent" residens who don't spend as much time in one community and no one questions their priviliges.
BGMPosted by Brian on 2004-08-22 08:52:44

Gary
What's the reasoning behind that 2000 law ? Even if they are "temporary" residents - most of at least 4 years with some staying longer or moving there altogether - they're still Americans. Why the hurdles / absentee ballot requirement, which were originally set up for people outside the COUNTRY not in another state. Surely they should be able to register for the Presidential vote where they're currently living ? I mean who decides what your primary residence anyway ?
All in all, it's a sad day in America when people hold "procedures" and "the process" in higher esteem than the principles and rights that the country was founded on.Posted by steve on 2004-08-21 22:07:25

Purging voter listS, and disinfranchising voters and redistricting is getting to be a very HIGH PRIORITY to Republicans. This should be made a Felony and these people should be jailed for commiting these acts. It will soon become ONLY Republicans can vote. Then there won't be a need to be a vote for we will be stuck with our dictators that are given the office by the Congress.
Our constitution is being violated every time a citizen is not allow their right to vote just because the Right Wing wants to CONTROL our country. Just as Hitler did. This is AMerica, EVERY ONE, HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE.Posted by Charlotte Wonn on 2004-08-21 10:14:05

You write that in Michigan, the Secretary of State "continues to enforce a 2000 law that has effectively barred thousands of college students from voting."
In fact, this law merely requires students to vote at their primary residence (i.e., back home), which they can do by absentee ballot with less wait and difficulty than our service men and woman overseas. (Pardon us if we'd just as soon have temporary residents from California or South Carolina vote in their own states rather than ours.)
Are you suggesting that Michigan's Secretary of State, a la Mayor Newsome, should violate rather than enforce a state law?Posted by Gary Glenn on 2004-08-20 12:47:25

How long before they hoist by their own petard? People are getting wise to the dirty tricks aren't they? My least favorite of them is the wedge issue, and that is why I have a new wedge issue branding slogan similar to the McCluhan epithet, the medium is the message:
The WEDGE is the issue.
Of course this only one front, and it hasn't been too successful lately. the gay marriage ploy was spent long ago, so watch out for out and out election fraud.Posted by daniel luke on 2004-08-20 12:15:00